1389

Bishop Pierre d’Arcis raises objections

A memorandum to the pope challenges the Lirey display and its claims.

D’Arcis alleged that the cloth was an artificially made image and referred to an earlier investigation. The memorandum is central to authenticity debates, but its claims and documentary context have been interpreted in different ways.

Around 1389, Pierre d’Arcis, bishop of Troyes, complained to Pope Clement VII about the public exhibition at Lirey. His memorandum states that a cloth bearing a double image was being proclaimed by many as Christ’s true burial shroud. He also alleges that his predecessor, Henri de Poitiers, investigated the matter, found an artist and heard a confession that the image had been painted.¹

What the surviving source says

The memorandum is a partisan document in an active jurisdictional and financial dispute. It is important evidence that the authenticity claim was challenged within decades of the first exhibitions; it is not the same thing as the missing artist’s confession, which does not survive independently. The separate 1390 papal correspondence allowed display under restrictions and used more cautious wording than d’Arcis sought.¹²

Historical significance and limits

The source establishes medieval controversy and an accusation of manufacture. It does not by itself explain the physical image or settle the cloth’s origin. The manuscript history and the corrected 1390 dossier must be read alongside the bishop’s complaint.²³

Sources and further reading

1. Pierre d’Arcis, memorandum to Clement VII, c. 1389, trans. Herbert Thurston. Consult the cited passage in the full source and its transmission context; the article distinguishes the source’s wording from later interpretation.
2. Otangelo Grasso, The Image That Should Not Exist: A Scientific Investigation of the Shroud of Turin (2026), ch. 2, “Origins and Historical Record,” pp. 23–31. Author synthesis; not an independent witness.
3. Otangelo Grasso, From Forensics to Faith (2026), ch. 3, “6th to 14th Century History,” pp. 126–194. The book advances an interpretation; this article separates that interpretation from the underlying document or measurement.
4. Otangelo Grasso, The Shroud of Turin: A Forensic Summary, 3rd ed. (2026), ch. 16, “The Hidden Thread,” pp. 276–294. The author’s proposed reconstruction is cited as interpretation, not corroboration.
5. Read an essay on the d’Arcis memorandum. Further reading or contextual source retained from this event’s earlier bibliography.
6. Alan Friedlander, “On the Provenance of the Holy Shroud of Lirey/Turin”. Further reading or contextual source retained from this event’s earlier bibliography.
7. Andrea Nicolotti, The Shroud of Turin: The History and Legends of the World’s Most Famous Relic. Further reading or contextual source retained from this event’s earlier bibliography.